Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 20GDCV00638, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20GDCV00638    Hearing Date: October 3, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      October 3, 2023                                              TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         YIN-FANG CHEN, an individual; HUNGYEN KE, an individual; and SHAWNARIEL INTERNATIONAL INC, a California corporation, v. JOE TSENG, an individual; PLATINUM CAPITAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC., a California corporation; PLATINUM CAPITAL LLC, a dissolved California limited liability company; PLATINUM CAPITAL 10 LLC, a California limited liability company; PLATINUM CAPITAL 11 LLC, a California limited liability company; ALBA INVESTMENTS LLC, a dissolved California limited liability company; VIVA CARE RCFE 2 INC. a suspended California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 20GDCV00638

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Joe Tseng, Platinum Capital Property Management Inc, Platinum Capital LLC, and ALBA Investments LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed August 11, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendants move for attorney’s fees totaling $89,590.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiffs Yin-Fang Chen, Hungyen Ke, and Shawnariel International Inc’s (“Plaintiffs”) claim that Defendants engaged in an EB-5 immigrant investor visa program fraud scheme. Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on August 4, 2020, alleging nine causes of action.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Tseng’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED against Plaintiff Shawnareial International Inc. for a total of $39,750.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs initially filed their complaint on August 4, 2020. On May 11, 2023, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint based on Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this case. On June 15, 2023, this court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Now, Defendants move for attorney’s fees totaling $89,590.

            “In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs.” (Civ. Code section 1717, subd. (a).)

            “ ‘Prevailing party’ includes the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)

            Here, dismissal was granted after Defendant’s motion, and Defendant is the prevailing party in the action. Defendants provide that the basis for the present motion based on identical contractual provisions contained in two contracts which provide: “In any action or proceeding arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party between Landlord and Tenant shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs.” (Tseng Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exhibits A and B paragraph 39.) The lease agreement formed the basis of claims found in both Plaintiffs’ complaint and Defendants’ cross-complaint. However, the parties to the contract are Joe Tseng and Shawnareial International Inc. Thus, the motion for attorney’s fees is only effective between Defendant Tseng and Plaintiff Shawnariel International Inc.   

            Defendants seeks attorney’s fees totaling $89,590 covering the services by two separate law firms. Tseng provides that Rimon, PC represented him in this matter until April 2023, when he retained Albright, Yee & Schmit, APC (“AYS”) to represent him. (Tseng Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant seeks $25,410 for services rendered by Rimon Law and $64,180 for services provided by AYS.  I will note that in their own moving papers the Defendants stated (quite accurately) that the Plaintiffs did nothing to prosecute this case: no written discovery was propounded; no depositions were taken or defended; no motions were litigated (that were actually opposed); no experts designated; and of course, no contested trial was required.  Alen Chen filed his notice of substitution on May 2, 2023, and Plaintiffs case was dismissed a little over a month later on June 15, 2023.  With these facts in mind the court will begin its discussion about reasonable fees.

             “[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (Ibid.) Once the lodestar figure is calculated, a court may adjust the award based on factors such as “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) “The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action.” (Ibid.)

            Tseng’s present motion contains various issues regarding the calculation of the lodestar fee. First, Tseng’s request for fees for services provided by Rimon Law is based on an estimation absent any supporting information. Tseng provides he has paid Rimon Law $12,510 expects to pay an additional amount of “at least $12,900”. (Tseng Decl. ¶ 7.) However, Tseng fails to provide how many hours that calculation entails nor does Tseng provide a breakdown of the work provided on the case. Tseng merely provides that Rimon Law charged $450 per hour. (Id. ¶ 8.) Tseng also does not demonstrate that he did pay the amount he states he paid Rimon Law.

            Additionally, Tseng seeks fees provided by AYS for 158.4 hours worked. AYS provides a broad strokes breakdown of hours provided but does not specifically list the hours worked on tasks. “Block billing occurs when ‘a block of time [is assigned] to multiple tasks rather than itemizing the time spent on each task.’ (Mountjoy v. Bank of America, N.A. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 266, 280.) Further, Tseng fails to demonstrate that the fees were based on a reasonable number of hours expended. For example, AYS seeks recovery for 19.3 hours for two days of depositions where none of the deponents showed. More generally, AYS seeks nearly 160 hours for less than four months of representation, at the time of filing of this motion, where Plaintiffs were completely nonresponsive. Additionally, Tseng seeks recovery for additional staff worked without any attempt to delineate the work provided to ensure the sought after fees are not excessive or repetitive. (Sachani Decl. ¶¶14-16.)

            The court finds that the reasonable number of hours for services provided by Rimon Law to total 35 hours at $450 per hour for a total of $15,750. Further, the court finds that the reasonable numbers of hours for services provided by AYS to total 60 hours at a blended rate of $400 for a total of $24,000.

CONCLUSION

            Tseng’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED against Plaintiff Shawnareial International Inc. for a total of $39,750.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   October 3, 2023                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org